The media has gone too far on this one. There was a poll recently that said more young people wanted to be famous rather than rich in this country. The desire to be famous is the culture of this killer's generation... and the media is falling for it by publishing this guy's picture, by publishing his name, and now worst of all by airing this guy's manifesto. Althouse, of course, piles on by linking to these stories. How is it that this individual has earned the right for millions maybe even hundreds of millions to see his picture, to know his name, and to listen to his complaints? Because he murdered 33 people. He figured that if he murdered people would listen to him, people would study him, people would try to understand him...and now he is right.

There will be copycat murders. There will be more kids who see that you can become famous by committing horrid crimes and it will be the media's fault. They are no longer reporting the news, The media is aiding and abetting the evil that men do. The media has become the drug dealers of these fame seeking murderers. The media supplies them with the goods to get high, and the innocent suffer. They can't stop doing it because their ratings are tripling by airing his manifesto. The media is one of the most disgusting professions. It's sickening.

We need a new rule. Members in the media need to be boycotted, they need to be criticized and ostracized for giving this murdered a stage in the same way Don Imus was..... Will anyone stand up?

Actually, this sounds like typical teenager angsty-rant to me. Most teenagers (or 23-yr olds) just wallow in their self-pity and resentment, though, rather than going out, locking the building doors, and hunting down the occupants to kill them.

I suppose you must be right: Murders will suddenly cease if someone out there will just stop telling us when they happen.

What a BS trite response. I expected such. You don't get it. This killer wanted to be famous, why else would he send his tapes and plays, etc... to the media. Most murderers kill because they want another person dead. Not to be famous. This guy killed to get us to oogle over him. To read about him. To wonder about his complaints, his desires, to view his art, to feel his social pain to ponder his insanity... HE DOESN"T DESERVE IT!

The media is giving him the stage. They are part of his scheme. Don't you see it?

In the Minneapolis Star Tribune, there was a big picture of him on the front page. He is the star of the show. The media has anointed him. The are making piles of money off his murders. The victims are no where to be found. They are not famous. They are not on the front page. They are faceles victims.

Sloanasaurus, I suppose you must be right: Murders will suddenly cease if someone out there will just stop telling us when they happen.

I suppose it is possible that you were actually stupid enough to misread sloan's post that way. I haven't seen enough of your posts to know if you're unintelligent or merely dishonest.

But sloan's point is entirely correct -- media hype of mass murders creates copycats. That's a simple, documented, objective fact. Increasing the risk of mass murder solely in order to make yourself some money is damned irresponsible, and journalists deserve to be criticized for it.

Downtown -- In the interests of fairness, I was the first person to throw out the first taunt. If you didn't find it anti-gay, and equate it with forcing all gays to wear pink triangles and live in ghettos, it would make me a little sad.

And notice the obligatory anti-gay taunt that Revenant had to throw in, even though the debate is about the Virginia shootings.

I feel somehow proud that DTL, of all people, has criticized me for referencing homosexuality in a thread that has nothing to do with it. Now if only Ann Coulter would stop by and criticize me for making ad hominem attacks and Michael Moore will criticize me for being poorly dressed and out of shape my day will be complete.

But oh, don't call Revenant an anti-gay bigot.

I'd feel left out if you *didn't* call me an anti-gay bigot. You call everyone an anti-gay bigot. Heck, you call people who openly support gay rights and gay marriage "anti-gay bigots" just for preferring Bush over Kerry. If you didn't call me an anti-gay bigot I'd worry I was in danger of joining the Green Party or something.

We need every college kid in this country to be packing heat. We need every high school kid to be packing heat. Especially in the drug-infested ghettos. Definitely we need every kid having a gun there.

If only everyone had a gun. Especially the loonies who stalk women. No need for background checks there. It would violate their freedom.

As long as loonies who stalk women can buy a gun on demand. Phew. Then we all know that we can breath softly and relax because we'll all be safe.

Because EVERYONE knows that had Virginia Tech not been a gun-free zone, then OF CORUSE all of those students would have taken a gun to their 9 a.m. class. I mean doesn't EVERYONE carry a gun to their 9 a.m. class in places where that's legal? How utterly normal. Especially geeky kids at a technical school.

Nevermind that ARMED POLICE were going around the campus looking for the killer. If only guns were legal on Virginia Tech campus, then of course that undergraduate freshman engineering female from Alexandria would have saved everyone.

The same basic thing happened at Appalachian Law School. Foreign kid killed three people. Then, he was shot by someone who had a gun.

There was a move, apparently, in the Virginia House to allow students to carry guns on campus. But it was defeated. The proud gun-control advocates said it was a great day because they didn't want anyone feeling unsafe.

Also, "Creative Writing" is not the same thing as Rhetoric and Expository Writing, Research Writing etc..

In Rhetoric and Expository Writing there are strict standards that must be adhered to. The perimeters are pretty narrow.

Naturally, the Shooter is funneled into the more liberal "Creative Writing" route, where they grade much easier, and spoonfed with lots of coddling and pampering.

English is a major with many different disciplines. Personally, I would abolish Creative Writing departments. They do nothing but babysit remedial students who aren't good enough to be doing traditional critical analysis, and other complex forms of rhetoric. Let's face it--this kid was at the bottom of the food chain in terms of English and literature. And his weak writing proves it.

Well, the problem now is that they (Big Media) are now glamourizing the whole thing.

Shooter now becomes the glamourous mythical mythical warrior. If you look at some of the slide shows, and the fantasy poses, (this is twisted, but stay with me...) It's almost romantic-like (the way they are presenting it) he's in half-quarter turns, his arms raised----like the cover of those fantasy warrior-romance novels.

Remember what happened with Charles Manson and Helter Skelter, and how lots of women fell in love with him, and write all these love letters to these serial killers----it's that type of thing.

There were a lot of women who fell in love with Son of Sam (and men too, I guess) . It's creepy, but that's what happens when you glamourize the whole thing.

I'm not saying it should be exactly censored, but maybe the focus put a little bit more on the victims.

I don't like seeing these romantic/glamourous poses with guns to be so....in your face. I mean, hey...I'm starting to fall in love....I'M KIDDING !!!! He's not Caucasian---so there's no way I'd ever develop an obsession, whew, thank Heavans.

David53 - He was wearing a bullet proof vest. And he had the element of surprise.

Who stopped the shooter in Texas in 1966? I believe it was a cop. Even though students were allowed to have guns.

It's really a silly argument. In all liklihood, ZERO people in that building would have been carrying a gun.

The West Virginia story is not the same. It talks about a student who went to grab his gun and then came back to kill the guy. Well guess what? In Virginia, this guy chained the doors so that people couldn't get out. And they couldn't get in.

A swarm of armed cops were looking for this guy. Do you really think an armed student would have gotten to the killer sooner?

Be logical. It's disgusting seeing a tragedy like this used to pursue a radically insane idea (guns should be allowed on campus).

The second amendment does NOT mean that people have a right to bring a gun onto a college campus.

But sloan's point is entirely correct -- media hype of mass murders creates copycats. That's a simple, documented, objective fact. Increasing the risk of mass murder solely in order to make yourself some money is damned irresponsible, and journalists deserve to be criticized for it.

I have several problems with this "simple, documented, objective fact".

Firstly, I read these studies too, and am not really confident that they don't commit the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Perhaps they do; you can make that argument.

Secondly, "hype" is a bit relative term. It lacks precision, not really defining very well the distinction between reasonable coverage and unreasonable coverage ("hype"), at least on my possibly "stupid", "unintelligent, or merely dishonest" view.

Thirdly, I think the notion of causality employed here is problematic. "Hype" creates copycats is equivalent to "Hype" causes copycats to exist. If it is the "hype" that does it; if the "hype" causes it, creates it, then the killer who, being caused by the "hype", created by the "hype", is totally passive in the event and is not himself responsible for becoming a copycat. If this "hype" is what creates copycats, then why do not all of us who are treated to this "hype" find ourselves suddenly transformed (created into) copycats?

Tell me: Is this "hype" a merely sufficient cause of copycats, or a necessary cause of copycats?

Also: Ought we look into what creates "hypists"? Or are "hypists" somehow responsible for the fact that they are "hypists"?

Tell you what. I'll just amend my response:

Copycat murders will suddenly cease if someone out there will just stop telling us when they happen.

Who stopped the shooter in Texas in 1966? I believe it was a cop. Even though students were allowed to have guns.

You are right it was very different in 1966 at the University of Texas. A sniper barricaded himself at the top of a tower with sevral rifles. No one has ever asked but I bet some of the people he was shooting at had handguns. A cop did eventually kill him.

I don't think it's a good idea for everyone to pack a pistol, but it this case I do wish at least one had had a chance to defend himself.

Questions: At what point, exactly, should the media have shut down coverage? At what point, exactly, would you like for it to have done? At what point, exactly, would you prescribe that it should have been done?

When it was discovered that the shooter was dead? Before that? If so, how long? After that? If so, how long?

NOTE: Every one of the following questions should be assumed to include, implicitly, the spirit, if not in all cases the precise wording, of the questions in paragraph one of this comment.

Should all media have shut down coverage? Only certain media? Only certain subsets of media?

Or should just certain sorts of coverage be shut down? If so, which? Should just certain outlets of coverage? If so, which? Certain media of coverage?

Or just certain topics? If so, which ones?

Or should certain coverage of certain topics be shut down by only certain outlets of some types of media but not others? Or should they rotate in some way, depending on--what?

What's the criteria? Who decides?

Do you think there's a consensus among the ultimate consumers? (That'd be all of us, out here, we the people, who, no matter what we say, consume all sorts of media enough to make it viable in one or another.)

***

My purpose isn't to be annoying--well, I suppose it is, in a sense. I want people to know what they mean, and what they're saying. I want them to define it, because if they can't do that even for themselves, then how can there be a standard? Or, at least, how they can even think that one can be developed? Or justify that one should be? Let alone help create one that doesn't lead to more unintended consquences than it solves problems.

***

Do I think "saturation" coverage does some feeding of the problem? Sure, I do. OhmyGod, I do (not just this one, but some others.) But what does that mean, exactly? Is all saturation coverage equal?

What "better" model do people have in their minds? If it's simpler, think of it in terms of decades, even just the decades of your personal time on earth. (Though, that said, the history of news and information media, especially broacast and other non-tree alternatives, is recent, relatively easy to grasp, and very accessible and relevant--compared to other histories--and therefore I do expect that even young media-savvies have relatively little excuse not to be clueful.) Which decade's media model do you prefer?

***

It's interesting to me to see that in various places and among various people--on-blog, off-blog, press, broadcast, real life--there's this implicit implication that we were better off when media was less ubiquitous, when you'd just turn to the morning paper(s) or watch your evening news, or listen to top-of-the-hour news updates on the radio. Is this across the board, this no media obsessing or addiction, or only in when there's an emergency or crisis that's sufficiently exceptional to actually--for real, in a way that matters--fall into the category of "man bites dog" news? What a turning on the head!

But pointing out the old saw of news definition was not where I intended to end up when I started that last paragraph. It was here:

Those who think we should go back to some sort of halcyon days of news coverage (which largely were a product of the technology of the day, and driven by a top-down approach to media: what you should you have access to, we decide; and everyone gets the same thing), I ask you:

Are you also the ones who thought the word should have gone out instantly, via such things as e-mail and campus radio and every other thing? Are you among those advocating for mass telephone messaging; cell-phone voice-mail messaging, IM messaging, and immediate posts on age-relevant internet networking sites, and so forth?

And if so, how, exactly, do you propose to merge those two different mindsets--move back a few decades in terms of some kinds of communication media, 'cause they're so ubiquitous and immediate and personal and attention-getting, but accelerate these OTHER forms of communication media because they're--so ubiquitous and immediate and personal and attention-getting.

Firstly, I read these studies too, and am not really confident that they don't commit the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Cho cited the Columbine kids as an inspiration. Isn't that pretty good evidence that he was, in fact, inspired by them? Isn't the fact that he bothered to make a video and mail it to the media also evidence that the desire for attention was a big factor here?

Secondly, "hype" is a bit relative term.

Fine. In place of "media hype creates copycats", substitute "broadcasting the homemade video manifesto of a homicidal maniac to the entire nation for no reason other than that he murdered a lot of people encourages OTHER crazy people to go out and commit murders in order to get attention". Because they know, hey, maybe nobody's listening to me NOW, but if I gank enough people EVERYBODY will listen to me. If I want to be able to address the entire nation tomorrow all I need to do is mail a videotape to a sufficiently unethical news organization, get my shotgun, and go to the old folks' home up the road.

No, it isn't, just as the statement "smoking causes cancer" isn't equivalent to the statement "cancer wouldn't exist if it wasn't for smokers".

Tell me: Is this "hype" a merely sufficient cause of copycats, or a necessary cause of copycats?

It is necessary for some, sufficient for others, and irrelevant to the rest.

Tell you what. I'll just amend my response: Copycat murders will suddenly cease if someone out there will just stop telling us when they happen.

If someone criticized the Klan for encouraging lynching, would you sneeringly respond "oh, lynching will suddenly cease if the Klan stops promoting it"? I guess so. The notion that an action can create MORE of something without having to be responsible for ALL of it appears to be beyond your grasp.

I'm going to say something that many of you will find terrible: even if it's true that having a wildly free press that can't keep itself from focusing on the worst aspects of terrible events is a direct, demonstable cause of loony attacks on public places every few years, it doesn't matter. A free press is more important than preventing these attacks.

The media is not a monolithic organization and isn't subject to government control, so it isn't going to "shut down coverage" at some institutional level.

At the individual level, journalists covering a crime must honestly ask themselves -- is the information I'm broadcasting doing more to reward the criminal than it is doing to inform the public? If the answer is "yes", then ethically I do not think they should publicize that information. Of course, perhaps their contracts are such that they are obligated to convey all information regardless of ethical considerations, but in my opinion that isn't the kind of job an ethical person would take in the first place.

seven,

A free press is more important than preventing these attacks.

Condemning the white racists I knew in high school for calling black kids "niggers" didn't make me an enemy of free speech, and criticizing the media for its behavior doesn't make me an enemy of the free press. "You have the right to do that" is not equivalent to "doing that is right".

Should all media have shut down coverage? Only certain media? Only certain subsets of media?

We have it in our culture not to publish the names and pictures of those who accuse others of rape. For example, the accuser in the Duke Case. Her name and picture was not widely released until after the charges were dismissed.

Why can't we do the same for these killers who desire to be famous? The media has a responsibility. Sure we can talk about the case, but we should do so in a way not to make the killer famous.

My two cents is this is not a story about guns, it is a story about the rights of the insane. Anyone who lives in a big city with a Skid Row knows there are thousands of crazy people sleeping in the streets and shelters who, if properly medicated, could live productive, peaceful and perhaps even happy lives.

But we have decided, as a society, that to compel insane people to submit to such treatment, to confine them, or even to keep track of them is both impossible and impractical.

The good news is, of course, we don't have insane people warehoused in bleak Dickensian institutions. It's also good news that people who are not insane are unlikely to fall into an institution like that through diagnostic or bureaucratic error.

The bad news is, we haven't thought of anything better. We've just walked away from the problem. An insane person only gets help if they are sane enough to recognize they need it; or if they have an aggressive relative who will intervene on their behalf, despite their resistance.

I have an insane person in my family. She is about 80 now. The last time anyone saw her was about 20 years ago. Occasionally she sends a postcard. She is wandering the streets of the Washington D.C. area. She didn't lose her mind until after she was married and had raised two kids. But since then...there was nothing anyone could do. Her husband, her brothers, her children, various ministers and doctors, nobody, because she didn't want help.

To my knowledge, she has never hurt anyone. But neither had this guy, until yesterday.

Dealing with the insane is one of the most tragic dilemmas our society faces.

It blows my mind, thinking of those parents and how they must be reacting to the news all day about how many dealings this guy had with police and mental health officials, how many people knew there was something wrong with him, and that he might be dangerous. And yet, even after the first shootings, nobody thought to go check his room. He wasn't on a list. "Hey, doesn't that insane student live here? Should we go up and talk to him?" That question was never posed.

He was a few floors up from the crime scene, calmly loading his weapons and ammo belts, undisturbed by anyone who might have suspected a connection. He had the right to be left alone, and was able to go about making his murderous plans behind the shield of those rights.

I think NBC is just loving this. It really puts them on the map. It's almost as if there was some sort of pact, that NBC was the network of choice for mass murderers. I love how they're also trotting out all the material in dribs and drabs....milking it ...to get the most mileage and spread out the ratings boon over several days.

The whole Manifesto has the little imprimatur "NBC" at the bottom. This is really NBC's finest hour, too bad 32 people had to die to get them there, but oh well....that's show biz, folks!

Teachers talk a good game about how much they love their students and want to see them succeed.

But they're not willing to carry guns to protect us... that shows a lack of commitment.

What I hear is, "we love you, and want to see you grow up, but we'd rather make a political statement about greater power for the central government (and an identity politics statement about not being rednecks) than be ready to protect you in a time of crisis."

JohnStodder: "I have an insane person in my family. She is about 80 now. The last time anyone saw her was about 20 years ago. Occasionally she sends a postcard. She is wandering the streets of the Washington D.C. area. She didn't lose her mind until after she was married and had raised two kids. But since then...there was nothing anyone could do. Her husband, her brothers, her children, various ministers and doctors, nobody, because she didn't want help."

Well, my goodness John, why don't you throw open your doors and invite her to live with you! Or, do you expect the Government to deal with relatives you don't want?

Yes, what do we do with the unliked, the unwanted, the grotesque, the obnoxious, the people that you certainly don't want living with you.

John, give me her name, I'll look for her and have her live with me. Can she cook and clean? Maybe she can scrub my floors.

People that you don't like---for whatever reason, you are going to call "insane".

Anyone I don't like, must be insane....including the whole Democratic Party.

There aren't enough beds, aren't enough institutions to house all the people that I think need treatment---the whole United Nations for starters.

That wasn't what you argued. You argued that media "hype" creates copycats, not that one murderer inspired another. Just how much "hype" is required to produce this inspiration.

No, it isn't [true that Hype" creates copycats is equivalent to "Hype" causes copycats to exist.], just as the statement "smoking causes cancer" isn't equivalent to the statement "cancer wouldn't exist if it wasn't for smokers".

So, create does not mean cause to exist? Right. Yes. I'm sure that must be the case.

[Hype] is a necessary cause for some, sufficient for others, and irrelevant to the rest.

Very well then: hype isn't a necessary cause of the creation of copycats. If that's truly the case then stop blaming the media. Besides 'causality' isn't as subjective a matter as you seem to think. If you are going to assert A as the cause of B, why then where we find A we must find B. If you are going to assert that sometimes A causes B, we may legitimately wonder whether A causes B at all.

If someone criticized the Klan for encouraging lynching, would you sneeringly respond "oh, lynching will suddenly cease if the Klan stops promoting it"? I guess so. The notion that an action can create MORE of something without having to be responsible for ALL of it appears to be beyond your grasp.

I am quite familiar with the notion. But I make a distinction between encouraging and creating. You are the one who said media hype creates copycats. Now it's that this "hype" you speak of encourages copycats. When you've finally decided precisely what it is you wish to hold the media responsible for that will be a good thing. (Bye the way: I would assert that certainly the precise lynching promoted by the Klan might cease if the Klan stopped promoting it. But I doubt it's the case that the media "promote" copycats in the same way that the Klan promote lynchings. I believe it is a question of intent.)

I think a heavy dose of ridicule must be heaped on this tiny dicked impotent loser asshole who's insanity, narcissism and inflated sense of self worth ended the lives of so many people.

Thankfully, these incidents are extremely rare, and are committed by crazy people (but that's no solace to the families and friends of the victims, nor does it diminish the scope of this atrocity).

But just cause someone is insane doesn't mean that there isn't a rationale behind their actions.

Building these monsters up in death only encourages future monsters. Tear them down in the most merciless way. Show them for the ridiculous idiots they are.

That won't stop all future attacks of this kind, but if material of the kind Cho sent were treated in the fashion I suggest, it just might cause the next sociopathic malignant narcissist filled with rage to think twice about sending a message through mass carnage.

NBC, and all the other news outlets that are putting out Cho's message unaltered are making a huge mistake in my opinion.

I don't know what you thought I was suggesting, or why you think it was appropriate to rub my face in this tragic situation that I chose to share with people in hopes of getting a conversation going (instead of the troll-a-thon you seem to be enjoying all by your lonesome.)

But I know from now on I'll skip over any post with your name on it. You can shove "Love, Maxine" right up your baggy ass. The word "love" is an obscenity when you write it.

johnstodder: The first shooting took place in a dorm called West Ambler Johnston. The murderer lived in a different dorm, Harper Hall. Unless I'm mistaken, it was nearby, though another dorm with an attached dining cluster was between them.

Your post contains a whole number of important points to consider, and I wish we would, and that we had, and that we will, and not just because of what happened this week, but certainly more so.

Daryl and Maxine are in close competition for the nuttiest comments so far. If it weren't such a grave topic, with so much sadness and grief attached, their contributions would be funny. Guess it's time for me take an Althouse vacation.

I knew a lady who's husband lost his grip with reality. He just up and left. When the family could find him they *tried* to get him to come home. They tried to provide for him but he'd have nothing to do with it. He lived on the street, didn't take care of himself much, finally a "do gooder" got him some public assistance and a place to live (not as though he *didn't* have a place to live, he just refused to go there) and any leverage they had to try to get him home so *they* could take care of him was gone forever.

Synova, my relative's story is similar. When people were still able to reach her occasionally, it was clear she preferred the hospitality of ministers and other helpful people who would put her up for a few months until something would happen and she would have to leave. She had a penchant for convincing these do-gooders that, for health reasons, they needed to let her sleep in the master bedroom!

But she refused help from family, except, I think, occasionally she'd ask for money. But that stopped long ago.

You answered just one question (and, by the way, reframed that one question in the process; that's why I'm not going to point out the obvious follow-up issues in your answer to the reframed question).

Sheesh, you're a tiresome fellow, aren't you?

As I noted in the answer I gave previously, there is no such thing as "the media shutting down coverage" in a nation with a free press and your first question is, therefore, meaningless. Journalists should chose what to broadcast and what not to broadcast by considering whether they are helping the criminal more than the public.

The answer to the other twenty two questions you demanded I answer is "read my first answer again, preferably with your head dislodged from your ass this time around".

I would further note that it is asinine to criticize me for not answering your questions when you yourself admitted, in the very post you asked them in, that you were asking the questions to be annoying. And the reason I should dignify your annoyance with a response is...?

That wasn't what you argued. You argued that media "hype" creates copycats, not that one murderer inspired another. Just how much "hype" is required to produce this inspiration.

"Media hype creates copycats" and "one murderer inspired another" mean the same thing, dumbass. A copycat murderer is a murderer inspired by ANOTHER murderer. Media hype ensures that a larger number of potential copycats get to be impressed with the deeds of other murderers, and thus ensures that more murderers get inspired to commit more murders.

I cited the fact that the Virginia killer was inspired by the Columbine killers (the previous world record holders for "most media-hyped school shooters ever") as an example of the copycat behavior you were lamely trying to claim hadn't been proven to exist. If you don't see the connection there then, well... moving on...

So, create does not mean cause to exist? Right. Yes. I'm sure that must be the case.

My point, which I stated three times but which you still managed to miss, is that not all copycats are the result of media hype. The fact remains that some are, and that THOSE copycats would not exist if journalists weren't trying to out-Geraldo each other.

Very well then: hype isn't a necessary cause of the creation of copycats. If that's truly the case then stop blaming the media.

Smoking isn't a necessary cause for all lung cancer. Shall I stop blaming smoking for lung cancer, too? Obviously not, because smoking IS a necessary cause for SOME lung cancer, just as media hype is a necessary cause for SOME mass murders.

So I'll go right on blaming the media for the death they cause, and if you can't follow the connections then, well, it's not my fault that you were born an idiot.

What arent we going fix in this tragedy? media coverage? nope, first ammendment still operates. locking up people who are crazy? nope, its a civil rights issue and those poor folks have the right to be out on the street. Geetting rid of handguns? nope, 200 million plus on the streets plus any number that could be imported and sold on a black market.

So what really is possible? Well, in our haste to joust at unfixable windmills, we have overlooked a very very important aspect of this problem. After 9/11 and after Katrina, we still do not have something as simple as a single frequency emergency management communications net that permits rapid communication among potential victims and first responders.

That solution is a matter of existing technology, money and political and bureaucratic will. The other issues I mentioned in the first paragraph are interesting philosophically but not practical.

I have to agree with Maxine's comments on this one, especially her point that Cho was nothing but an evil and malicious little drama queen rather than genuinely insane. I too have a relative, much beloved, who was like a big brother to me in my younger years, who developed full-out paranoid schizophrenia in his younger years. He's on medication now and for the most part himself. But back then his auditory hallucinations, beliefs that the TV was talking to him, belief in a fantastical and nightmarish world-wide conspiracy, etc., crowded out virtually any perception of the real world around him. If he had done something bad in that state of mind, no one could have held him personally responsible. Cho was not in that category, not at all.

The "families" are usually the ones who commit the abuse in the first place, but as johnstoddar illustrates, they play the "innocent ones" ....and it's everybody else who's insane.

EXAMPLE: The Kennedy "family" had absolutely no problem, it was all Rosemary's fault. Joe Kennedy didn't molest Rosemary, she made the whole thing up, and deserved the lobotomy she was begging for.

It's Rosemary---she's the one who's insane...because the Kennedy "Family" is perfect, right?

Families don't abuse at all, do they? Families aren't bullies at all, are they? johnstoddar is a wonderful specimen---you can tell by the way he deals with me---someone he doesn't like.

Do you like me, johnstoddar? Please like me. I need you to like me.

It's always someone else's fault. The Kennedys were saints, Rosemary was the one who had the problem. Families don't gang up on black sheep, now do they? No no no never happens. And it certainly isn't happening with the johnstoddar family. No way !

"States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent."

Of course, the paper Coulter draws her facts from is full of the usual dubious and outright fraudulent use of statistics typical of Lott (the narrow subset of crimes they are addressing is so rare--about twenty-five in the entire country per year--that reasonable statistical conclusions cannot be drawn) and then adds an outright lie of her own that further undermines her credibility. She states that Lott's study covers the period 1977--1999 (which of course would include Columbine which of course was in a ccw state). It does not, it ends in 1995.

I have to agree with Maxine's comments on this one, especially her point that Cho was nothing but an evil and malicious little drama queen rather than genuinely insane.

Maxine believes that there is no such thing as mental illness (although she does believe in all kinds of magical things like Astrology), so be careful about agreeing with her. Schizophrenia is a very complicated disease and manifests itself many ways. Some schizophrenics are perfectly capable of complex plans although their actions are driven by completely irrational thoughts and delusions.

I think that it is unfair and cruel to condemn this young man or his family as evil or all the other nasty names Maxine has hurled at him when all the evidence points to a young man with a very serious, universally recognized, medical condition. If an autopsy revealed a huge tumor in his brain, would you still call him an "evil and malicious little drama queen" or admit that maybe there was a organic reason for his behavior? Schizophrenia (regardless of whether or not Maxine believes it) is every bit as real as a brain tumor and certainly affects behavior more than the position of the stars and planets when you were born.

I definitely agree with Maxine's (and John Kindley's) comments with regard to the killer and the media's glorification of his message, which is nonsensical. There should be no soundboard for these individuals -- whether mentally ill or pure evil -- to use. It's sensationalist and just as sick of our society to allow ourselves to be entertained/fixated by such atrocious behavior. And it makes the media an accomplice to his crime to televise or publish his motives.

As for possible mental illness, while it warrants compassion in all cases, in situations like this, society must consider victims and their families first, and safety. Doesn't everyone with mental illness have moments of lucidity (even if only in the beginning) where they become vaguely aware that they are stepping off a precipice of reality, are not quite right, and often make a coherent decision not to seek/pursue getting help? However, I am sure that many don't feel that they will ever pose a danger to others. While there is pure evil out there, mental illness kills; the consequences are the same. Ask Ms. Yates.

Now mingling with the peaceful flocksAll gentle bleats and snowy fleecewhat nightmare beast among us stalksWhose thirst for blood imperils peaceOn sunny days, we watch the skiesFor hawks, the harbingers of deathSometimes, no shadow signifiesThe advent of our final breathAnd when the thinning veil of fateIs ripped, like flesh by tooth and clawDeath's visage, recognized, too lateConsigns us to his grinning maw